Table 5.

Cox proportional hazards regression model analysis of factors affecting OS

Parameters	Univariate Cox regression				Multivariate Cox regression
	P-value	HR	95% CI		P-value	HR	95% CI
			Lower	Higher			Lower	Higher
OCT4 (positive vs negative)	0.001	2.982	1.547	5.748	0.744	0.857	0.340	2.159
SOX2 (positive vs negative)	0.063	1.961	0.964	3.988	0.075	0.396	0.143	1.097
NANOG (positive vs negative)	0.001	2.908	1.510	5.599	0.003	4.375	1.640	11.669
Age (≥50 years vs <50 years)	0.004	3.000	1.409	6.390	0.015	3.073	1.244	7.589
Tumor side (left vs right)	0.299	0.692	0.346	1.385	0.060	0.402	0.155	1.041
Higher pathological grade	<0.001	5.939	2.958	11.924	0.001	4.321	1.880	9.932
Tumor size (≥3 cm vs <3 cm)	0.018	2.585	1.177	5.677	0.809	1.141	0.391	3.329
Higher T stage	0.002	4.207	1.693	10.455	0.205	2.005	0.683	5.886
Higher N stage	0.021	1.547	1.068	2.240	0.880	0.945	0.453	1.971
Higher TNM stage	0.002	2.649	1.429	4.912	0.433	1.904	0.381	9.516
ER (positive vs negative)	0.017	0.437	0.221	0.863	0.169	0.492	0.179	1.351
PR (positive vs negative)	0.015	0.403	0.194	0.835	0.662	1.266	0.440	3.645

Notes: Data are presented as P-value, HR, and 95% CI. P-value <0.05 shown in bold was considered significant. Pathological grade was scored as: 1, well differentiation; 2, moderate differentiation; and 3, poor differentiation. T stage was scored as: 1, T1; 2, T2; and 3, T3. N stage was scored as: 0, N0; 1, N1; 2, N2; and 3, N3. TNM stage was scored as: 1, stage I; 2, stage II; and 3, stage III.

Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor.